What do you think about the CShell?

Yes and no. The base of the OS is the kernel which is only one. Kernel runs everything else including system processes like shell, HAL, API libraries, drivers, user processes etc. (okay, that is not completely precisely true but is a good enough abstraction for the purpose I try to make). In this sense there are no two OSes. Bot Win32 and UWP nicely converge on the kernel.

I disagree with your definition of what constitutes the kernel, but these days it's even hard to find two people from Microsoft who agree on that topic, so arguing over it seems pointless ;-) I prefer a more technical definition :

If it runs in the CPU's kernel-mode then it belongs to the kernel (parts of MinWin + Driver Infrastructure).

If it doesn't run in the CPU's kernel-mode, then it's not part of the kernel (everything else).

I don't want to argue that point though. I'm just providing context for my own usage of the term.

That aside, wouldn't "OneCore" be the better term for what you are describing? OneCore is that part of Windows which is shared between Win32 and UWP which seems to be what you are going for, so I'm going to use "OneCore" to refer to that.

Originally Posted by mikosoft

Bot Win32 and UWP nicely converge on the kernel. Their API libraries are both ran on the same kernel using the same drivers. Yes, compositing engine is different but the same applies - different API library running on the same kernel.

Win32 and UWP both converge on OneCore. True. However, OneCore by itself is not a complete personal-computing OS!

For example, assume an OS independent UI library like QT wanted to support the development of UWP apps. While QT has a completely different UI API from the one exposed by UWP, drawing anything on screen requires QT to access UWP's rendering pipeline. That's not just an API, but a big chunk of functionality that defines how and when the descriptions of graphical content are rendered. None of that is part of OneCore! It's specifically part of the Universal Windows Platform, without which you'd never get anything from an UWP app but a black screen.

In regard to the security model, consider that OSes often enforce certain security restrictions. For UWP, an example would be the restriction that apps are sandboxed, one aspect of which is that apps can't write into each other's private storage space. Enforcing this rule has absolutely nothing to do with the UWP API. That aspect of the security model is not even accessible or configurable through any API. This is also not part of OneCore! Enforcing it is part of the Universal Windows Platform run-time environment! Defining security policies and enforcing them are responsibilities typical of an OS.

The point here is that there exists plenty of functionality, of the type that is usually considered the responsibility of the OS, which resides between the UWP API and the shared OneCore. That's the part MS refers to as being the platform (in UWP). I could provide many more examples, but I think it's enough to illustrate the point.

BTW, the opposite is also true. There are about 4GB worth of DLL's that belong only to Win32, very few of which are purely API implementations. Of course I'd only consider a small part of those 4GB strictly OS related, but stuff like advapi32.dll or user32.dll are perfect examples of DLLs that implement OS level features without which no Win32 program will run, but are part of neither OneCore nor UWP.

You also referee to the shell as being part of the kernel, but that is incorrect. The current shell is implemented in shell32.dll and it is specific to Win32. Neither the kernel, nor OneCore nor the UWP know anything about it.

In a nutshell, OneCore is not a complete personal-computing OS, as it lacks much more than just an API through which to access it. For OneCore to provide all the capabilities typically expected of an OS, it must be complimented either with Win32, UWP, or both. However, UWP and Win32 compliment OneCore in very different ways, thereby resembling two OSes. We could get nitpicky and say it's more like 1.5 OSes rather than 2 : 0.5 (OneCore) + 0.5 (Win32) + 0.5 (UWP), but that's probably going to end up being more confusing than helpful.

I agree with all your other points though.

If I still haven't convinced you then I'm probably going to be forced to give up. ;-)

Who knows? Maybe it comes down to the fact that English isn't my native language and nobody in my area would agree with your definition? It took long enough to figure out where a large part of the disagreement came from. I'd rather focus on the substance than the terminology, so I already decided to go with "potentially disruptive" instead. That hopefully already solved the problem, so lets move on please.

Well in either case, potentially disruptive is not possible to know for sure either. Cshell and device convergence collectively could be disruptive commercially, it just isn't yet.

If it runs in the CPU's kernel-mode then it belongs to the kernel (parts of MinWin + Driver Infrastructure).
That aside, wouldn't OneCore be the better term for what you are describing?

Well, no, I actually did mean what you suggested. I do have some basic education in operating systems :)

Originally Posted by a5cent

You also referee to the shell as being part of the kernel, but that is incorrect.

Well not really, I actually meant the exact opposite. My wording was probably bad, sorry for that, English is not my native language. What I meant is that kernel (and pretty much everything apart from the kernel) is ran by kernel (since one of kernel's jobs is process scheduling). Sorry for the confusion, I think your suggestion I meant OneCore also stemmed from this.

Originally Posted by a5cent

We could get nitpicky and say it's more like 1.5 OSes rather than 2 : 0.5 (OneCore) + 0.5 (Win32) + 0.5 (UWP), but that's probably going to end up being more confusing than helpful.

I agree with all your other points though.

I will agree with you here. I think we both pretty much view it similarly but we're both coming from different angles (I consider a basic kernel with process scheduler and memory manager a complete OS albeit one that is really hard to use :D ) so in the end I don't think only one of us is necessarily right and the other one wrong.

I think we both pretty much view it similarly but we're both coming from different angles (I consider a basic kernel with process scheduler and memory manager a complete OS albeit one that is really hard to use :D ) so in the end I don't think only one of us is necessarily right and the other one wrong.

Okay, got it. That makes it clear where our differences come from. You have a very technical and "bare-bones" view of what constitutes an OS. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm still wondering though, wouldn't you say that my view of what constitutes an OS is a lot closer to how the average consumer views and understands it? After all, most have no idea what a memory manager or scheduler are or what they do. Would you not agree that my view is more useful to most people in terms of helping them understand how OneCore, UWP and Win32 fit together and what the differences are between W10 and W10M. That's what I was going for with the "W10 = two OSes" point.

Don't worry, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I'm just wondering if I need to change my explanation, or of it is close enough to technical reality while still being understandable to most people, and being useful in terms of the point that needs to be made (W10M, not W10, is MS' only personal-comptuing OS that is really just a single OS).

I'm still wondering though, wouldn't you say that my view of what constitutes an OS is a lot closer to how the average consumer views and understands it?

I'm not sure if I would really go the "two OSes in one" route with an average consumer. Such a person doesn't even know what exactly an OS is and what it does and what it doesn't - I've experienced people equaling applications with OS such as "my Windows doesn't work - how so? - It won't load internet". In that case it's best to stay with "that is Windows and it can run your old apps and then these new ones that can use these tiles and notifications - see? And you can use that app on a windows phone as well, see? And it saves your data across windows devices, see?" - yeah, that would go out off hand pretty quickly for some but still it's better to keep it this way.

Probably the bigger issue for the user in this scenario is how can a common user tell the apps apart. If they don't install the apps themselves (which they rarely do, everybody has their PC guru) they don't really know if the app came from the store or not. Difference between one or 1,5 or 2-in-1 OS in that case is pretty useless. They view Windows as "that desktop with icons and start menu on my computer" and they often equal OS with computer or apps.

I'd probably see it useful for a particular group of users who don't view themselves as completely clueless but don't go any further than "OS is a software that runs on my computer".

I'm not sure if I would really go the "two OSes in one" route with an average consumer. Such a person doesn't even know what exactly an OS is and what it does and what it doesn't - I've experienced people equaling applications with OS such as "my Windows doesn't work - how so? - It won't load internet". In that case it's best to stay with "that is Windows and it can run your old apps and then these new ones that can use these tiles and notifications - see? And you can use that app on a windows phone as well, see? And it saves your data across windows devices, see?" - yeah, that would go out off hand pretty quickly for some but still it's better to keep it this way.

Probably the bigger issue for the user in this scenario is how can a common user tell the apps apart. If they don't install the apps themselves (which they rarely do, everybody has their PC guru) they don't really know if the app came from the store or not. Difference between one or 1,5 or 2-in-1 OS in that case is pretty useless. They view Windows as "that desktop with icons and start menu on my computer" and they often equal OS with computer or apps.

I'd probably see it useful for a particular group of users who don't view themselves as completely clueless but don't go any further than "OS is a software that runs on my computer".

Yeah, Agreed.

I understand you wanting to explain that W10 can run Win32 and UWP apps, but that's not what I'm trying to explain here. I'm trying to explain how those two environments and their capabilities affect the OS (security, performance, reliability, ease-of-use) and how that makes W10 and W10M different.

For people who have no idea what an OS is, the whole concept of wanting to explain the difference makes no sense. So, the way I described my target audience (the average consumer) is waaaay off. *cough* ;-)

What I should have said is that it's meant for people who would visit a site like this, meaning enthusiasts or even the writers here at WCentral who are themselves often confused. Basically, people who are not developers but still want to understand the technology they are using.

Well CShell is just leaked as a build and it looks pretty stable. How will this take Windows Mobile to the next level?

I think there is no place for smartphones any more in our world. Just remember, first there were Pocket PCs. Then someone added cellular module to them, and they became Communicators. After some time people started calling them Smartphones. But in their core they still are Pocket PCs with a cellular module inside.
Now we have lots of small PCs like Compustick and others, but without a screen and input device. I think it's time to merge them together. Actually I was waiting for this for ages. Why do we need to have several devices when we can have only one always nearby: in the pocket on the street, on the table connected to a large screen and keyboard at our desks.
I use my "phone" mostly not for calls but for internet access on the go. I don't want a Surface Phone, I want a Surface Mini with LTE.
I hope I'm not the only one, because in our democratic society majority decided that OneDrive placeholders were confusing ;)

My question is why they are doing this? and what I mean is what do they want to achieve with it?
At the moment what it means for windows mobile is that they are killing it: The few current users won't be able to get it, none of MS managers use a windows phone anymore so how can they convinced a normal user to pay big money for another experiment when they will do the reboot thing again when their products don't sell.

On the business side is worst why a company will invest of pricey devices if is not supported. e.g companies who adopted the 950 XL or Elite who know not for sure that they devices are obsoleted now.

For me this is some "executive" decision where someone said make me a phone where I don't have to spend too much money in supporting it, the answer was windows on arm and cshell but apparently they ignore the issue of who is going to buy this? They are expecting to work as a Surface did but the main reason of the surface success was because most of the OEM devices on the 1k price range were crap while a MacBook air just worked and also looked nice, Surface filled up that gap. In mobility, at the moment, There's no appetite for being able to run photoshop or autocad on a phone. People use a mobile device for emails, browsing and entertainment and companies just need a safe way to access to their resources.

It's the first time I'm really pissed of and disappointed of the windows mobile reboot thing, I managed to sell my HD2, Omnia 7, Titan HD and 920 but who on the world is going to buy my 950 XL for a fair price (400) when they can get at least an iPhone 5s that provides access to all MS services and also to every mobile app in the world.

MS should commit to support properly the current windows mobile and not replace it with cshell, then at least they will have a chance for people to bet on the next upgrade but that's not going to happen.

Microsoft has to confirm their commitment to their Mobile OS first, since several news discussed that Windows Mobile won't move to Redstone 3, which includes CShell.
The odd thing that Windows OneCore was refined to adapt to any upgrades and improvements done to the OS, with no technical issues that prevent new upgrades.

C she'll is the continuation of what Microsoft started with the 950, in truth its probably the continuation of what Microsoft started with the one windows. It does look great, very exciting but again Microsoft will really need to advertise this and ms is really good at not advertising great software and devices.

Unfortunately they squandered their Continuum opportunity. The only place I cared about using it was in the car. They were a member of the CCC for years but resisted adding MirrorLink into W10M. We can see that Apple and Google already have Continuum like functionality in the car, and it is a game changer in mobile. Microsoft abandoning everyone who drives a car was the nail in the coffin. It's the only reason I left and went to iPhone. It's really frustrating to see they keep ignoring the car. The car is the most critical environment to have great support for. Until they get this, their mobile ambitions will be unsuccessful.

For us simpleton, the killer feature for then Windows Mobile was an efficient OS that have the same basic experience whether on SD2xx to the Giant-Slaying behemoth of a SD8xx series

Comes W10M kinda quashed every average user that wants a secure and smooth mobile experience that any Android (basic phone tends to lag on security updates) and iOS (dem price tho!)

After reading this thread, is it safe to assure that W10M or on-ARM will not be attainable by the average joe? If so, when will the tentative cut-off for the great Windows Mobile reboot gonna happened?

Curious because I've just bought a preloved Lumia 640 (non-LTE dual sim) to replace my asmatic Lumia 430. Was hoping it gonna last me a while because its the cheapest W10M phone that supported in the last Creator's Update

My question is why they are doing this? and what I mean is what do they want to achieve with it?
At the moment what it means for windows mobile is that they are killing it: The few current users won't be able to get it, none of MS managers use a windows phone anymore so how can they convinced a normal user to pay big money for another experiment when they will do the reboot thing again when their products don't sell.

On the business side is worst why a company will invest of pricey devices if is not supported. e.g companies who adopted the 950 XL or Elite who know not for sure that they devices are obsoleted now.

For me this is some "executive" decision where someone said make me a phone where I don't have to spend too much money in supporting it, the answer was windows on arm and cshell but apparently they ignore the issue of who is going to buy this? They are expecting to work as a Surface did but the main reason of the surface success was because most of the OEM devices on the 1k price range were crap while a MacBook air just worked and also looked nice, Surface filled up that gap. In mobility, at the moment, There's no appetite for being able to run photoshop or autocad on a phone. People use a mobile device for emails, browsing and entertainment and companies just need a safe way to access to their resources.

It's the first time I'm really pissed of and disappointed of the windows mobile reboot thing, I managed to sell my HD2, Omnia 7, Titan HD and 920 but who on the world is going to buy my 950 XL for a fair price (400) when they can get at least an iPhone 5s that provides access to all MS services and also to every mobile app in the world.

MS should commit to support properly the current windows mobile and not replace it with cshell, then at least they will have a chance for people to bet on the next upgrade but that's not going to happen.

There is literally no genuine official confirmation there will be any "reboot". That's fan speculation. Cshell is seen running on a 32 bit machine (ie current chipsets), and there's no reason IMO why it couldn't be made to run on any current supported phone. The higher demands should be able to be met by the phones requiring it (ie those running continuum).

Don't listen to the old wives tales of the usually less than accurate windows blogger rumour mill, and wait and see what happens.

The current focus on bugfixes is really good. Some enterprise features are promised, and the new keyboard. Some app based updates will likely come (timeline and skills via Cortana, files on demand via one drive).

Probably next year support may wane, if MSFT can get some 64 bit phones out. But I think everything will remain backwards compatible - the whole UWP library for win10 is 32 bit.

Microsoft has to confirm their commitment to their Mobile OS first, since several news discussed that Windows Mobile won't move to Redstone 3, which includes CShell.
The odd thing that Windows OneCore was refined to adapt to any upgrades and improvements done to the OS, with no technical issues that prevent new upgrades.

"News" outlets. Nothing official from MSFT says anything of the sort. We've no indication that cshell has any relationship with r3, or when its planned for released. We have no idea whether fall will bring feature updates or not.

Composable Shell could fart pink unicorns and spread gold pixie dust and it still won't make a dent unless someone builds GREAT HARDWARE for it. Honestly, Nutella has his head up his ***. NO ONE will buy Windows Phone if there is no GREAT HARDWARE. Tens of millions of users are using crap Android software because there are GREAT PHONES for it. The same goes for the slightly less crap but still ugly iOS.

You could build the best phone in the world and it wouldn't matter unless you tell people about it. Marketing has always been an achilles heal for MSFT. The 650XL, HP Elite X3, are great phones, that no one knows about.

its huge. cshell is huge specially with mobile. we saw a better continuum with cshell. Lumia 950XL in example should benifit with cshell alot. i just hope microsoft sends that update to Lumia 950/XL. i mean these people who invested with Lumia 950/xl has to be given HUGE consideration for providing Microsoft insight on what todo in the mobile section.